photoshop_get_selection_bounds

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and meets it: it declares read-only status, 'Side effects: none', the precondition (active document), and the return shape. This fully discloses the operational profile an agent needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by structured Use/Do NOT Use blocks and a compact Returns/Preconditions/Side effects section. Every sentence adds distinct value with zero waste or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, return format, precondition, and side effects. For a single-optional-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add semantic detail about document_id beyond what the schema already provides, but the schema itself is thorough, so no compensation is required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (read) with a precise resource (active pixel selection bounds) and unit (document pixels). It distinguishes itself from sibling selection tools like photoshop_select_rectangle and photoshop_select_subject by explicitly framing itself as a read operation on an existing selection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit 'Use when' (verifying selection existence/size/position before mask, fill, or recipe steps) and 'Do NOT use when' (creating/modifying a selection) guidance, naming the specific sibling alternatives. No ambiguity remains about when to invoke this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.